I was thinking more about it, at lunch today. The John McCain quote. And I’m starting to think that the parallel construction works much better than I originally gave it credit.<\/p>\n
First, let’s review what he said.<\/p>\n
This is a clear choice that the American people have. I had the courage and the judgment to say that I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war. It seems to me that Senator Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
I had pretty much denoted the parts thus:<\/p>\n
\n
- Senator McCain<\/strong><\/dt>\n
- x = lose a political campaign<\/dd>\n
- y = lose a war<\/dd>\n
- Senator Obama<\/strong><\/dt>\n
- b = lose a war<\/dd>\n
- c = win a political campaign<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n
But, clearly, y = b, so at the very least I should make it Senator Obama would rather y in order to c<\/em>. That’s some parallelism right there.<\/p>\n
But furthermore, the lose a political campaign <\/em>is the exact opposite of win a political campaign<\/em>. That would make c equal to the reciprocal of x. So then we would have it be Senator Obama would rather y in order to 1\/x<\/em>.<\/p>\n
And then the final structure would be Senator McCain would rather x than y; whereas, Senator Obama would rather y in order to 1\/x<\/em>.<\/p>\n
Far, far more parallel than I gave it credit. It still isn’t true<\/em>, mind. But it does have an internal logic that I first missed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
I was thinking more about it, at lunch today. The John McCain quote. And I’m starting to think that the parallel construction works much better than I originally gave it credit. First, let’s review what he said. This is a clear choice that the American people have. I had the courage and the judgment to … Continue reading Parallel Construction<\/span>